$1000 awards

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

OFFER OF $1000 AWARDS
	Bernard L. Cohen
	University of Pittsburgh

	In the February 1995 issue of HEALTH PHYSICS (vol.69, pp157-174),
I published a paper on "Test of the linear - no threshold (LNT) theory of
radiation carcinogenesis....." in which I reported that lung cancer
mortality rates for U.S. Counties, with or without correction for smoking
prevalence, decreases rapidly as average radon exposure increases. This
represents a large discrepancy with the prediction of LNT theory that lung
cancer rates should increase rapidly with increasing average radon
exposure ("rapidly" here means about 7% per pCi/L). My problem is in
understanding this discrepancy.
	I have examined the effects of over 60 confounding factors, and
have done many other tests, but this work has done little to explain our
discrepancy. I have gone through the literature on "ecological studies"
and can easily show how the results of any other published ecological
study can be erroneous, but I cannot figure out how one can avoid
concluding from our data that LNT theory fails in this low dose region
where it has never been tested. A very important  difference between my
study and the others is that they are trying to determine a cause-effect
relationship, whereas I am only trying to test a very definite theory. 
	What I need very badly is suggestions for "not implausible"
specific potential explanations for our discrepancy, in at least
semi-quantitative numerical terms, on which I can carry out calculations
to determine if they can resolve it, or can be modified to resolve it. For
example, one might suggest correlations between specified socioeconomic
variables (I could then calculate the required correlation coefficients),
or specified irregular variations of specified confounding factors with
age or economic status, or ............
	I offer a $1000 award to anyone who submits a suggestion that,
after a detailed evaluation, leads to a not-implausible explanation of our
discrepancy. I can give up to five such awards. If the submitter does not
agree with my judgement on plausibility, I would be happy to accept the
public judgement of any prominent radiation health scientist suggested by
the submitter (by "prominent" let's say 10 papers in HEALTH PHYSICS over
the past 10 years --or something equivalent). I would hope to publish a
paper on this, with the submitter and judge as coauthors if they like.
	Alternative suggestions for implementing my offer would be most
welcome. I really need help on this problem.
	If anyone would like a copy of our data file, I would be happy to
provide it.

Bernard L. Cohen
Physics Dept.
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Tel: (412)624-9245
Fax: (412)624-9163
e-mail: blc+@pitt.edu